Teaching The Dark Side Subconsciously

How Respect For Infamy Subconsciously Taught

Does USA Academia Teach Respect for Wealth & the Leader Principle?

In a society, institutions teach insidiously the subconscious often more efficiently than what they profess officially. Precisely because, being insidious, the “teaching” is subconscious, surreptitious, thus undefended against.

One way to do that is to give a human being’s name to prestigious chairs. Then proudly, firmly and very officially, it is announced, often by the beneficiary himself, that said beneficiary of the Chair is “The Blah Blah Von Bloh Bloh Bloh Professor of Such and Such at the University of This and That”).

Thus, the impression is imprinted on teenagers that it is by the good grace of someone extremely wealthy that the professing professor seems to have been created. Hence wealth creates intellectual, academic authority.

[French soldiers were killed in combat in the CAR, while stopping a huge civil war/holocaust in the making; All the more a reason to act well, with nothing to hide.]

One can instill reverence for money in a myriad of related ways. Buildings get named according to wealthy individuals or corporations. The (self-described) “best” universities flaunt their wealth, in billions of dollars (they call that wealth “endowment”).

Better: one can force students to pay “tuition” which is of the order of the average family income. Thus wealth, and wealth only, makes access to knowledge and wisdom possible.

(Some will object that there are scholarships given on merit, or “racial”, ethnic, or gender reasons. However, the fact remains that even the scholarship are processed, loud and clear according to wealth distributed.)

The “Leader Principle” is continuously taught in the USA. The paradox is that a real democracy is ruled by the People, not leaders. So the very prominence of the Leader Principle admits that democracy is secondary.

How To Avoid War Crimes:

Some soldiers in the French Army were accused in a secret United Nations report of sex abuse against some boys in the Central Africa Republic (CAR) during the on-going Operation Sangaris. The report was leaked to the French Military by a UN official, and the French immediately started an enquiry.

Now it has become a huge affair. The UN heavily depends upon the French Military to intervene all over Africa, ever since French paratroopers blocked the Cuban army from invading Congo (wars Shaba I and II), and engaged in spectacular operations such as the rescue of Kolwezi.

16 soldiers are involved (and, apparently, only 4 of them French, contrarily to what journalists in England claimed; others were Africans, yet still under the UN Mandate).

In any case, full light will be made: the French Republic recognizes the authority of the International Criminal Court for war crimes committed by its own soldiers.

Overall, the greatest difference between the Western democracies and their enemies in the Twentieth Century, was that they (mostly) did not engage in war crimes.

Perhaps the greatest crime was committed in Algeria in 1945, when the French engaged in a crack-down against would-be independentists (or just ex-soldiers who wanted full rights). This did not work well, as ultimately, as a result of this (war) crime, a terrible civil war happened in France and Algeria (which is basically unresolved to this day!)

Right, the French engaged in torture in Algeria (but that was entirely excusable). Right, the USA engaged in massacres in Vietnam (but the most famous such massacre, My-Lai, was prosecuted). Right, the greatest crime of the USA in Vietnam, clearly a massive war crime, the usage of Agent Orange, was abominable (one million were killed, disabled, or severely affected). But it can be argued that these dangers were not clear at the time (the British had used defoliants during the Malaysian Emergency, without a significant outcry).

And of course the British, French and Americans had been pretty rough with the Nazis in 1944-45, to the point the Nazis had whined about it. Surrendering to Americans was difficult, they tended to shoot until there was obvious peace; the British fired-bombed cities… But, there again, the Nazis had got it all started. The first raid in Germany, a raid on Berlin, by French Naval aviation, was a direct retaliation to Nazi attacks on French cities…

The USA has gone, though, the other way, in recent years. Obvious war crimes in Iraq were covered-up for all to see. And the USA does not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court.

Too bad Obama did not have the guts, and brains, to even try to change these things, when he (supposedly) controlled the politics of the USA, six years ago.

Instead, those who reveal the crimes were prosecuted. This subconsciously teaches the world that it is OK for violence to be used criminally by authority in the USA. And thus by any authority, anywhere in the world. And then even by those who have no authority.

Well, at least that is what the Nazis say. Top Nazis themselves claimed that other top Nazis, and the most fanatical ones, Heydrich, Hitler, were… Jews
Calling the USSR a Jewish creation is weird. President Jackson disliked, or I should say, hated, the Rothschild family. However there is no need to call Rothschild “Jews”. They incarnated the fractional reserve public-private financial system. That is what is wrong, not some mysterious appurtenance to “Jewish Domination”.

The Francophobia thing has more to do with the growth of plutocracy in the USA, and its RELATIVE decrease in France, at least at the level of discourse. The first USA billionaire was Carnegie (a generation or two after Jackson). There was an alliance between (most) USA plutocrats and the current of racism, nationalism, militarism, and supposed teutonicophilia which blossomed as Nazism.

There are a lot of people of “Jewish” descent in France, as Judaism in France is older than Christianity, by centuries, and was legal (so to speak), for most of the last 2,000 years.

Sarkozy said this??????????? Hmmm… Damn, you made my esteem for him rise infinitely, from something absolutely zero, to something infinitesimal, but positive.
Really, I don’t care about what Sarko says. However, I do care about the truth. Gallo-Roman France, like the rest of the empire, had plenty of Jews (it may have been 10%…) The Druids were definitively not Jewish, and made the Jews look like Einstein, relatively speaking. Druids’ religion was NOT smart. Judaism was NOT outlawed by Rome, however, after the second dumb Judean War, Jews were kicked out of their Homeland (Israel). A similar revolt, later, by the Samaritans, led to their near-extinction (2,000 are left…)

That Obama was made, there is now, unfortunately, little doubt. And he is as “liberal” as a door knob. (As I supported and worked for him massively, among other things I am in good position to know!)
That it has just to do with the “Chicago Jewish elite” is rather, well, not really sorry to say, naïve. Was the Daley family Jewish? Or Jesse Jackson Jewish? (Obama’s wife is connected to Jackson and the “Black” elite in Chicago…)

Daley, and the other 4 politicians in his family, were of Irish descent, and is famous for his intervention at the Chicago National Democratic Convention for shouting, “Fuck you, you Jew son of a bitch.” at somebody who wanted to contradict him.

Don’t forget his father, an obvious case. I came to that conclusion all by myself, after he went 180 degrees on so many issues. Never heard of Madsen, but I know BO well enough to know what was fed to the public did not feed the reality…

NS Germany didn’t started the War, Britain and France who declared War on Germany who was fighting the Soviet Union alone, WWII was fought to save Communism and jews and destroy real nationalism with exception of the jewish one.

You have got your chronology wrong. The Nazis, following their immediate predecessors (“Weimar”) were allied to Stalin. The alliance was made official in August 1939, to scare the French Republic, but failed to do so.

Actually, the thesis could be advanced that National-Socialism of the German Workers Party was a Jewish plot to destroy Western Europe in general and Germany in particular… Serious: Hitler and Heydrich were rumored by top Nazis to be “Jews” (in the Nazi sense) themselves… That theory does not hold on closer inspection… However, a generalization of it including USA Jews such as the Warburgs, resist examination pretty well… When you want to know who committed a crime, look at whom it profited… 😉

France could not live with the Nazis next door. Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” starts with six pages of hatred against the French. The Jewish “problem” is addressed only later. It’s actually quite interesting…
Ultimately, the French plan worked… in 1945. There was lots of bad luck, abysmal stupidity and treachery involved in 1940 to make France fall. Logically France and Britain ought to have been able to beat Nazi Germany all by themselves… And they would have with modest intelligence and average luck (instead of extreme bad luck).

I see the issue of Judaism as ultimately one of tribalism.
Originally Gods were representations of the tribal spirit, with individuals as expressions.
The idea of monotheism was that all of reality was the expression of a single God. Yet as the Jews practiced it, it still remained a tribal God. So the liberal effect was one of universality, while the conservative effect was one of megalomania.
The real fallacy of monotheism is the assumption of the absolute as an apex point, rather than a universal state. Which makes it be an ideal from which we fell, rather than the more logical essence from which we rise. This formation nicely suits those who wish to rule though, as it validates the “Divine Right of Kings.”
Christianity was largely filtered through the Greeks and so the trinity is an analogy for past, parent and future, as the Greek pantheon is largely about the cycling and regeneration of nature.
A good book on the topic:http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30250/30250-h/30250-h.htm

The Greeks sort of believed in THE God… Neptune and company were sorts of sub-deities… In practice, when one reads the texts… There were also demi-gods, etc…
Catholics had to reconstitute that quickly, with the Holy Spirit, Mary, all sorts of Saints, the “Son”, etc… That seriously enrages the Wahhabists, who want it all very simple, so they can cut throats and forget it…

What they didn’t really see was our individuated, quantified, digitized, atomized view of reality. Only our technology is truly advanced. Many of our current assumptions about reality are still not very enlightened, just pushed to the point of reductio ad absurdum and our world is teetering on the edge because there is too much commitment to these ideas.
Money, for example; It’s really nothing more than a communal voucher system that has metastasized to replace much of our social interaction, because of that obsession with autonomous individuality and losing sight of the organic flows on which we exist. It is promises from all those other people we don’t particularly trust in the first place. Meanwhile those running it are destroying it out of their own unmitigated greed.
And we think the ancients were primitive for trying to visualize some deeper sense of spirit?
Does consciousness exist because of thoughts, or do thoughts exist because of consciousness? How do we really judge?
The Wahhabi were fortunate enough to be sitting on the most oil and the resulting wealth enabled them to promote the most unyielding version of their beliefs. Without that money flowing in, they would have had to engage the larger world on its terms. The consequence is they have also grown quite brittle. The Yemeni situation has to be rocking their boat.
Form defines energy. Energy manifests form.

Yet when it reaches the scale of billions of people, it’s not morality, or politics. It’s physics. Now we too are swirling into the vortex of that giant siphon of value that distills the fuel for the Machine.
Money moves people because it is quantified hope, like a carrot on a stick. Or refined sugar.
Corporations are effective because they move lots of people in one direction, much like an army.
Plutocrats rule with force because they don’t know any other way. They are people, like academics. Do academics live in a bubble? You will no more defeat plutocrats by attacking them, then you would convince an academic his theory is wrong.
If you want to change things, you can try to undermine them, but they know all the tricks.
What if, rather than making up a better story for people to follow, you could show them time and thus the very act of narration, is not fundamental?
That God is not an ideal from which we have fallen and to which the mighty pretend to control access, but the essence from which we rise. That the Divine Right of Kings is a sham.
That the true essence of reality is the present, not some morality or origin narrative, or some reductionist store of wealth or preciousness, or some knowledge to which only the most degreed have access. That what is most important are the people they know and the world in which they live. Community and the environment are our greatest stores of wealth.
Now of course, no one would accept your plan, because everyone is beholden to the Machine and feel threatened in some way.
So what to do? Wait for it to blow up, while continuing to plant seeds of different ways of looking at things.
As chunks fall from the edifice, people will have flashes of freedom, even though it will be considered anarchy. Then you might seed the ground a little more.
None of us gets out alive anyway.

The point is, you don’t want everyone moving in the same direction, be it narrative, nation, desire, etc. They move in all directions in order to balance. Then the actions will not become “Too Big To Fail.”

One cannot afford paralyzing pessimism, though. I noticed a well advertised plutocrat, married to an even more famous, CIA connected Pluto died violently, a few days ago, and there was no POLICE enquiry… The present system gets away with murder, no doubt, that’s the ultimate symbolic meaning of the drone-on civilians program…

Much of human life is about as safe as it has been in history, or pre-history.
We are largely motivated by the polarities of attraction to the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental, aka. good and bad.
Also known as hope and fear. The forces which control what we hope for and what we fear, control us. Ultimately it is nature, but human interventions have managed to provide a think lens through which we view these realities of nature.
Now largely these efforts have moved toward protecting us from the harsher elements of nature and so we view them as good, yet often human desires conflict and these tensions can be dangerous to one or the other. so there are often trade offs.
The current situation is creating a lot of debts to nature and in the course of repaying them, large parts of the lens are going to be disrupted.
This is why it is good to know what is and not just what we want to hear. Politicians and priests tell us what we want to hear, while philosophers are supposed to tell us how it is. That is why so many people make their livings as priests and politicians and few as real philosophers. As opposed to the academic bench warming kind.